24fandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Nina Myers
Trinity v. One Shot I've read both Trinity and One Shot and Nina's first encounter with Jack is depicted completely differently in both sources. Should we try to come up with an explanation in the "After Trinity/Before One Shot" section or should we just ignore it, describe both "first encounters" and explain the discrepancy in the Background Information section? : I've yet to read Trinity, but if the two events are 100% mutually incompatible, we resort to the Canon policy. In this case the two sources are at the same level of canonicity, so the preference would be to go with the newest piece of story material, Trinity. --Proudhug 15:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Corpse We see Nina's corpse at the beginning of Day 3 3:00am-4:00am as they're covering her body with a sheet, so that should be her last appearance. --Pyramidhead 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC) : Yes. --Proudhug 02:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Picture Should the picture go back to the first one, the one from Season one? Cantanarazzo 10:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC) : Usually, the most recent picture of the character is best, I think. I don't know what everyone else prefers. --Proudhug 13:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC) : The general rule is to use the most recent promotional picture. This is a promo from her last season, so I think it's as good as any. --Pyramidhead 23:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC) :Could we add some more pictures of her, I just think that such a good villian should have a more updated profile. Cantanarazzo 04:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC) :: Of course you can; just remember, if the pics are time-specific, to place them near the appropriate paragraph in the article. If you need help formatting the pics, just let me know, Cant! Or just duplicate the wikified text of the ones which already exist. – Blue Rook 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)talk Tried and Convicted? The last line in Day 1 states that Nina was tried, convicted, and sent to prison. Since this did not actually happen on Day 1 (unless I missed something in the last 30 seconds ;), doesn't this belong in a Before Day 2 or After Day 1 section? Of course, the line by itself is not enough to merit a new section-maybe instead at the beginning of Day 2 it says "Since the events in Day 1, Nina has been imprisoned for her actions," or something. Putting it in Day 1 makes it sound like it happened in Day 1, which it did not. Dylnuge 03:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC) : Yeah, this definitely doesn't belong in Day 1. I would think it's okay in an "After Day 1" section, even if it's on its own, but your suggestion for Day 2 would work also. There may be more information from Findings at CTU and Season 2 that could be added to a "After Day 1" section, too, to pad it out. --Proudhug 11:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :: Looks like nothing ever happened with this, so I guess I'll get on and do it! SignorSimon 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC) :::Following up on a similar note, would Nina also be the first female villain on the show seen being granted a presidential pardon followed by Mandy and various others or was there some other minor character who was granted this prior?--Gunman6 (talk) 23:22, August 15, 2015 (UTC) Profile I've been trying to clean up the character profiles page and make it as thorough (and accurate) as possible. I'm not sure who originally added the Background section on the current page, but if by chance you're still out there: was that taken from the Fox website, Findings, or both? I don't have the book, and I've never seen the original Fox version, since they've "classified" it ever since Season 1. --Pyramidhead 00:10, June 21, 2010 (UTC) : Yes, that information originally came from her fox.com profile. Findings took all of the fox.com profiles and expanded on some of them, plus added many new ones. Unfortunately yes, when S1 ended, they "classified" Nina's profile online, as she was revealed as a mole and the implication was that her background was now in question. I however see no actual reason suspect that the background information given in her profile was false, merely her loyalties. Subsequent seasons, as well as the EU material, seem to imply that Nina Myers was her real identity, but she just had many secret agendas. --proudhug 00:22, June 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Thanks, that clears a lot up! I guess that explains how Operation Proteus found its way into both the book and the website. --Pyramidhead 00:30, June 21, 2010 (UTC) : Yup. Cerasini also mentioned Operations Proteus and Jump Rope in Trojan Horse. --proudhug 00:43, June 21, 2010 (UTC) Background info In Day 1 she is speaking Serbian to Andre Drazen. She also claims her name is Yelena, a feminine Slavic name. Is she actually Serbian, or is "Yelena" another one of her aliases? Is Nina Myers her real name, or an alias? And in Day 3 when David Palmer is reviewing things about the virus, Nina comes up on the screen with an alias saying "Sarah Berkely". Perhaps this could be her actual name, but I'm confused about the whole thing. [[User:PacBoyCraZ|'Thom C']] ''Talk'' 19:35, August 19, 2011 (UTC) : There is no evidence that the name "Nina Myers" was falsified as far as I know. It seems that Yelena was her code name. Although it is possible that Nina is the fake name, like Dana Walsh's name, we'd need some kind of supporting proof from the show or a source like that., to be certain. 20:26, August 19, 2011 (UTC) Pages Can somebody make pages for Ali Abdul and District 3. They are the only onces. --Station7 12:23, October 7, 2011 (UTC) is there any information suggesting whether or not the writers had decided on Nina as the second mole already when they first created her character, or sometime between then and the plotting/writing of the last few episodes (of day 1) - and likewise (a separate question), when was Sarah Clarke told? She does do a good job of hiding any ulterior motives from her expressions, it seems to me. Not necessarily best for this talk page (though then again, not sure why not, and not sure where else on this site that information would go, if it has been made available. It might be in one of the Behind the Scenes sort-of-things...) Thanks Eschiss1 (talk) 20:47, July 3, 2013 (UTC) Maybe they thought in the Season 1 episode in which Jack asks Nina if she is the mole and she says she isn't, maybe they planned her at that time as a mole. However, they maybe thought to make Jamey the first mole so we would forget Nina later in the season, when she is actually the "second" mole. --Station7 (talk) 20:53, July 3, 2013 (UTC) Well, yes, but was hoping something existed that was a bit more from-the-creators'-pens or what have you. Even as late as 5pm-6pm one can see (trying to watch it without knowing the ending, of course :) ) hints that maybe George Mason is the real mole, or... or... - of course, all capable mystery-writers put in bits of indirection like that, so that by itself proves nothing (though it does please me!) ... anyhow, thanks! Eschiss1 (talk) 21:10, July 3, 2013 (UTC) (Hrm. Can't help noticing though... in the opening narration in some of the episodes, when Jack says people ... may be involved in both- that is Nina in the background, isn't it... or does that only happen on the DVD, and wasn't true during the airing of the original episodes?... ... interesting (-- sort of. I think).) Eschiss1 (talk) 03:01, July 4, 2013 (UTC) :I'll have to look for specific statements from the writers, but it's obvious they were selling Nina as the mole from the beginning, and even Jack doesn't trust her at first. But then they diverted the attention to Jamey Farrell, which ended up making the Nina revelation more surprising. Most people had already thought "Oh they already got the mole" so they didn't expect that double-cross with Nina. Thief12 (talk) 12:46, July 4, 2013 (UTC) :Here's an interview with Sarah Clarke which pretty much clears her side of the story about how much she knew. Thief12 (talk) 12:51, July 4, 2013 (UTC) Ah, I should have read that. Thanks! Only found out six episodes before... that is - not unprecedented, but- yes, interesting. :) Eschiss1 (talk) 13:02, July 4, 2013 (UTC) :I think I've read and heard several writers of the show saying how they more or less made things on the fly during seasons. Thief12 (talk) 01:08, July 5, 2013 (UTC) That too could explain some things positive and negative in the results over the years maybe. (Though any show set more-or-less in the present day has to have at least some flexibility in any case even if not as much as that... I remember reading something about the 2008 election and a Heroes episode (written some while in advance) in which someone meant to be the President (or whoever was the President when the show finally aired) made a brief appearance.) Eschiss1 (talk) 01:27, July 5, 2013 (UTC) I believe it was decided about the middle of the way through Season 1. At least that's what Keith Topping's book says. Silent Hunter UK (talk) 18:28, August 20, 2015 (UTC) A personal aside Because of this woman, I learned never to trust short brunettes in spy shows. Also, I have named a few of my RP characters Jelena. Silent Hunter UK (talk) 18:33, August 20, 2015 (UTC) Cordilla sting op Should she be in the sting op category? Jack Gael and Tony never intended or expected her to be a part of the whole thing, she was only implemented into the sting op by chance.--SuperbowserX (talk) 06:38, January 8, 2016 (UTC) : Yes, Nina fits the category's inclusion criteria, and was even added by the cat's creator back in 2008. 04:49, January 9, 2016 (UTC) Wald milita category? Anyone else agree she has a place in the wald milita category (or the second wave category) since she was supporting them?--SuperbowserX (talk) 18:51, March 25, 2016 (UTC) Anyone?--SuperbowserX (talk) 05:44, March 28, 2016 (UTC) :I think Second Wave more than Wald militia - she just met with Wald militia once to instruct them and give them plans, on behalf of Second Wave--Acer4666 (talk) 09:11, March 28, 2016 (UTC)